I’m not sure if Brownback could be elected as a Republican, because he was born a Protestant but converted to Roman Catholicism in adulthood. Evangelical Protestants are a big part of the Republican Party’s voter block, and they might be uneasy about electing a Catholic to the Presidency, like most of the country was about Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. He might have a shot as a Democrat though, even though he probably wouldn’t switch because he’s very conservative, you know, anti- gay marraige, pro-life, etc…
That would surprise me a little. Now if he were a pro-choice Catholic, then he would have to deal with the church sniping at him from the sidelines, but an extremely right-wing Republican Catholic would still have trouble with the Evangelicals? Hmm.
Church going voters are the Republican base, not fundamentalists. There’s a **huge **difference. Republicans aren’t so stupid that they would choose Brownback over McCain. And the polls show that. McCain: 27%, Brownback: 1%. Now, Brownback is new in the field but I’ll bet you any amount that McCain is still polling higher than Brownback among Republicans 6 months from now (unless McCain chooses not to run).
Yeah, wasn’t one of the right’s complaints about Kerry was that he wasn’t Catholic enough?
My question, then, would be: which candidate will be the beneficiary of all those evangelical votes in the primaries?
That’s really just over one year, since the GOP primary calendar is extremely front-loaded.
But I’m curious: what ‘group of the party’ does your Ohio friend speak for? That sounds to me like the sort of GOP ticket a Broderite would invent, rather than one that represents the GOP as we know it.
I think that difference isn’t all that huge. Which churches do you think we’re talking about, in which proportions?
Except for the ones who like Brownback better than McCain.
I agree. But there isn’t a primary six months from now.
What I’m saying is, there is an underserved market here. That’s a big opportunity for somebody. I don’t even know that it’ll be Brownback. It might be Huckabee, or somebody else. Or maybe the market will go on being underserved, and get split in several ways.
But McCain isn’t going to grab a huge chunk of it. Neither is Romney. Giuliani? Gingrich? Don’t make me laugh.
I’m talking about all churches. Exactly how many fundamentalists do you think there are in this country?
McCain has already grabbed a huge chunk of it. I like Chris Matthews’ take on the Republican nominating process: they choose the guy whose turn it is. And it’s McCain’s turn, if he decides to run. They’re not going to choose some nobody (who hasn’t a chance in hell in the general, btw) just because the guy panders to the extreme social conservatives. Giuliani could possibly take it, but I agree that Gingrich is a laughable choice-- his time has come… and gone.
About 120 million of voting age, give or take: Rasmussen says 54% of adult Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God.
I’d say a lot of them will back McCain unless given what they see as a better choice. Way I see it, most evangelicals are kinda holding their noses, hoping someone more to their liking shows up.
Believe me, I’m aware of this. In the past 10 Presidential elections, the GOP establishment has been behind a particular candidate, and that candidate has won the nomination. (It’s true that in four of those instances, the candidate was a President seeking re-election, but the other six certainly constitute a pattern.)
But I think there’s a chance that this is the time that whole system breaks down. A chance, I said. I’ve nowhere here said that Brownback is more likely than McCain to win the nomination; in fact, I’d rather emphatically say McCain’s the one to bet on. If I had to bet against him right now, I’d want the betting odds to be something like 4-1 or 5-1 in his favor. But I don’t think McCain’s got a lock on the nomination yet, despite his apparently being the anointed one for 2008.
Nobody’s going to choose a nominee because he panders to social conservatives. The potential is that a candidate who is a social conservative, and consequently doesn’t need to pander to them, McCain-style, will convince a lot of social conservatives that he’s the sort of guy they’d like to see as President.
That’s the opening, or so I claim. There are really two questions here, one being whether I’m right about that. The other question is, if that opening exists, will a Brownback or a Huckabee be able to take advantage of it?
That doesn’t make them fundamentalists.
The whole “McCain isn’t a real conservative” meme is a media invention. McCain is indeed a social conservative. He’s just not a religious nut, and neither have any recent Republican presidential candidates been one, Bush notwithstanding.
Plus, there may be a new guy on the block picking the presidential candidates, as California considers moving its primary to February.
Technically true - there are actually five fundamentals, of which Biblical inerrancy is only one. But the others - Christ’s divinity, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc. - are pretty much bound up in that one.
There really isn’t any daylight to speak of between a fundamentalist and a Biblical inerrantist. You can be an evangelical without being a fundie, and vice versa. Although I’ve met very few self-described evangelicals who didn’t believe in Biblical inerrancy.
One can be a social conservative without being a conservative Christian. In fact, you don’t even need to be Christian; there are Jewish social conservatives floating around.
But that doesn’t mean the evangelical tribe thinks you smell like one of them. And we are talking gut-level tribalism here. They’ve gotten very used to having a President who speaks like one of them, who they fully accept as one of them. They don’t have that sort of acceptance of McCain. That isn’t a myth perpetuated by the media, unlike McCain’s supposed straight talk and maverick ways.
Now, that’s a whole 'nother story, and I really, really don’t like it. The closer all the big states hold their primaries to the beginning of the primary season, the greater the edge to those candidates who come in with lots of money and a well-established organization. If this happens, it’s a huge boost for both McCain and Hillary Clinton.
There was recently some talk that New Hampshire was going to move their primary to December of this year. My attitude now is, hell, why not June?
After Nevada scooped them, some were discussing that, but as the NYT said:“Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.” I’m pretty sure NH has backed down since then.
My mother would have answered yes that the survey (in your earlier post), and there’s no way she’s a fundamentalist. If 54% of the nation were fundamentalists, the Dems would never win a presidential election. Besides, what you’re talking about are evangelicals, not fundamentalists. It’s hard to pin down the exact number, but it’s probably about 30 -35% of the population, and that includes about half the African American population, too. Evangelicals vs. Fundamentalists
I didn’t say the media propagated that myth. It’s true that McCain is not an evangelical or born again Christian. Would it help him if he were? Sure. But the polls right now show Giuliani with a slight lead over McCain among Republicans and he isn’t even a social conservative. Bush is the only so-called born again Christian that the Republicans have nominated since that term was invented. I think he’s more of an aberration than the norm. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, Dole… none of them were particularly religious.
From your link:
Which was what I was saying.
Look, I’m sure Rasmussen’s number is high. I can’t explain their result, but they are a reasonably reputable polling outfit, and that’s what they came up with.
The point is, there are more than enough fundies to determine the outcome of the GOP nomination.
You said the media propogated the myth that McCain wasn’t a ‘real’ conservative. I basically said, “So what? Wrong axis.”
And over that period of time, the role of evangelicals in the GOP has been (a) growing, (b) shrinking, (c) staying more or less the same?
When Nixon was President, the fundies still thought politics was ‘of the devil.’
.
.
Best post you’ve made, RTF. 
Is that a zen thing?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
My mother would have answered yes that the survey (in your earlier post), and there’s no way she’s a fundamentalist. If 54% of the nation were fundamentalists, the Dems would never win a presidential election.
From your link:
Which was what I was saying.
Look, I’m sure Rasmussen’s number is high. I can’t explain their result, but they are a reasonably reputable polling outfit, and that’s what they came up with.
The point is, there are more than enough fundies to determine the outcome of the GOP nomination.
You said the media propogated the myth that McCain wasn’t a ‘real’ conservative. I basically said, “So what? Wrong axis.”
And over that period of time, the role of evangelicals in the GOP has been (a) growing, (b) shrinking, (c) staying more or less the same?
When Nixon was President, the fundies still thought politics was ‘of the devil.’
Ooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
The text was all there, but it wouldn’t show up in the post.
Let’s try this again:
[QUOTE=John Mace]
My mother would have answered yes that the survey (in your earlier post), and there’s no way she’s a fundamentalist. If 54% of the nation were fundamentalists, the Dems would never win a presidential election.
From your link:
Which was what I was saying.
Look, I’m sure Rasmussen’s number is high. I can’t explain their result, but they are a reasonably reputable polling outfit, and that’s what they came up with.
The point is, there are more than enough fundies to determine the outcome of the GOP nomination.
You said the media propogated the myth that McCain wasn’t a ‘real’ conservative. I basically said, “So what? Wrong axis.”
And over that period of time, the role of evangelicals in the GOP has been (a) growing, (b) shrinking, (c) staying more or less the same?
When Nixon was President, the fundies still thought politics was ‘of the devil.’
macacalypse. 
Ooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
The text was all there, but it wouldn’t show up in the post.
Let’s try this again:
[QUOTE=John Mace]
My mother would have answered yes that the survey (in your earlier post), and there’s no way she’s a fundamentalist. If 54% of the nation were fundamentalists, the Dems would never win a presidential election.
From your link:
Which was what I was saying.
Look, I’m sure Rasmussen’s number is high. I can’t explain their result, but they are a reasonably reputable polling outfit, and that’s what they came up with.
The point is, there are more than enough fundies to determine the outcome of the GOP nomination.
You said the media propogated the myth that McCain wasn’t a ‘real’ conservative. I basically said, “So what? Wrong axis.”
And over that period of time, the role of evangelicals in the GOP has been (a) growing, (b) shrinking, (c) staying more or less the same?
When Nixon was President, the fundies still thought politics was ‘of the devil.’
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Ooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
The text was all there, but it wouldn’t show up in the post.
Let’s try this again:
I dunno why your post didn’t show up in the thread; it’s obviously all here.
[ Moderating ]
RTFirefly, I have no idea what you think you are doing, but the Edit function is NOT to be used to delete whole posts. If the deletion was an accident, I will restore the post for you, [YEAH, THE STAFF, AT LEAST, CAN SEE THE STUFF THAT HAS BEEN DELETED DURING AN EDIT.]. If the deletion was deliberate, you are jeopardizing your rights to post on the SDMB (and, potentially, jeopardizing leaving the Edit function open for other posters).
[ /Moderating ]